What would the 2016 election result look like without the "winner take all" rule?

Maine and Nebraska only 2 states without the WTA rule. If nationwide then -would that make the presidential election even less competitive, and it would increase the likelihood of a candidate winning the election without winning a majority of the national popular vote?
http://www.fairvote.org/fuzzy-math

What would the 2016 election have looked like if all states adopted the district style of distributing electoral votes? It would have been a legal nightmare. First many states like a winner take all system as their state predominately leans one way. If split voting occurred, many states would work harder to implement disparate treatment in the districting to help better ensure their candidate win. Some states, like Arizona, were so tired of legislative corruption the citizens passed an initiative, and defended it all the way to the Supreme Ct to take district line drawing out of the hands of the state legislature and put it in an independent body. Other states are still under the Voter’s Rights Act rule for showing a history of discriminatory disparate impact districting. The lawsuits and compromises in these states would be huge. Next, more stringent laws on residency proof would be implemented. For instance, as a resident of Massachusetts it technically does not matter in MA where I vote for the President (as we have a winner take all – it would matter for more local issues). However, in a split system of voting you might see people trying to change district residency by moving in with their parents for a month is voting in that county could help more. Driver’s licenses would effectively be useless as proof of residency as many people move and do not update the license until it expires. Using a bill is iffy, as I can log online and change my address really quick and claim a new address and use e-bill to print and not have it sent to the fake address. People would have to walk in with property deeds (which even then if you own more than one home or rent multiple apartments doesn’t prove anything.) Voter frauds or at least calls for fraud would be ripe. The founding fathers never meant for 90%+ of Americans to vote, or have their vote count, hence the Electoral College/Delegates. Yes, it was a power grab to disenfranchise the many and consolidate the power for the few. This was done for purely selfish interests, and because they truly believed most people were not intelligent enough to be trusted with this responsibility. Complicating the election process may result in more people acting irrationally, emotionally, and absurdly all in the hopes of supporting a party. Who knows maybe changing the system will prove that the U.S. cannot handle non-simple elections.

You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.